Think Tax Day Is Expensive This Year? Just wait.

As federal income taxes come due this Thursday, Americans are well aware of just how expensive government is becoming.

But as the Wall Street Journal warned today, we ain’t seen nothing yet. Obama’s go-to strategy for cutting the deficit is to tax the so-called rich, but this would send tax rates to exorbitant levels.

For example, to reduce the deficit from 11 percent of the economy today to a sustainable 3 percent of GDP, families with more than $209,000 would see tax rates rise from 33% and 35% to 72.4% and 76.8%, according to new findings from the Brookings-Urban Tax Policy Center.

Why are these rates so high?

Number 1, the government is spending too much. Over the next ten years, government will expand by (an inflation adjusted) $12,000 per household, totaling more than $36,000 per household. That’s a whole lot of spending that requires a whole lot of new taxes to pay for it.

Number 2, the arbitrary requirement that new taxes only be paid by the “rich” ignores the critical fact that the top 10 percent of earners already pay more than 70 percent of federal income taxes.

But the greatest problem with this tax-trend is that it balances the burden of paying for growing government on the backs of a few families is that it creates immense dependence on the government by non-payers—those who collect federal benefits but pay no federal income tax—who have no skin in the game.

Instead of focusing on who to tax, Congress should focus on the real problem—spending—and start tightening its belt to save us from having to fork over even more of our income this time next year.

Nicola Moore is Assistant Director of the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation. Moore advances Heritage's conservative solutions to economic challenges through research and analysis, focused primarily on the rising cost of the major entitlements -- Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

Join The Discussion

I'll say it again, until federal government removes itself from states' domestic affairs we'll continue to be burdened by big government fraud, waste and abuse. And that's exactly what it comes to with their out-of-control spending. The constitution's commerce clause specifically limits federal taxation to cover costs for items like defense. I'll go a step further. To ensure our nation functions explicitly as designed by our founders, individual and corporate taxes should be levied only by the respective states. Federal revenue would be derived solely from state governments. This would pay for national security and other necessary external matters.

We need a Federal tax– be it a flat tax, a Federal Sales Tax– something that everyone pays, rich or poor. Anyone that wants to live here and enjoy the benefits and freedom of Americans should be willing to pay toward the preservation of those freedoms, rather than the working class supporting the moochers that expect everything be provided for them at no cost to themselves. That is simply NOT the American way!

Keep in mind though that the most wealthy 10% possess 85% of the world's total wealth. If you go by wealth, and that statistic, the top 10% should be covering 85% of our income tax payments.
Source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/article…
On the other hand, in the late 90's the top 10% received 42% of overall pre-taxed income.
Source: http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Distributionof…
So on one hand, one could argue that taxing the top 10% above 42% would be unfair. On the other hand though, because they maintain a grossly over-proportionate amount of collected wealth, one could also argue that taxing the top 10% a given amount is far less of a strain on this population than it is on the other 90%, and so then our idea of "fairness" may have to extend beyond the simple numbers of income and tax alone.

Also, it's perfectly reasonable that the top 10% should be paying increasingly more taxes since they have been accumulating a larger percentage of both overall wealth and income through time.

One could argue either way how much, little, or at all the government should spend in it's efforts to expand programs that are supposed to generate net revenue in the long run, but I don't see how increasing the tax burden on the portion of the population carrying the vast majority of the wealth is anything but, well, logical.

Beholder said of wealth redistribution " … but, well, logical"? This may be so with California's social engineers. Why should entrepreneurs be forced by government to pay a higher percentage of taxes? Choosing to donate money is America's way. Forcing a tax penalty on success is not. The federal congress made a series of bad calls in 1913. The most egregiously corrupt being their 16th amendment. The nation has followed the wrong path ever since. Obamanomics has has only added grinding insult to injury.

The argument for taxing based on your ability to pay is a really slippery slope towards Communism which has been shown to be a disaster economically for the rich as well as for the poor. We are already taxing the rich disproportionately if they earn 42% of the pre-tax income and pay 70% of the total taxes. Looking at the wealth accumulated by the rich is also deceptive. Whenever you reduce the wealth of the rich you reduce their ability to create jobs. Wealth would include savings which is loaned out to small businesses. Wealth would include land which is used in farming and ranching. Wealth would also include buildings, factories, office equipment, business vehicles and many other assets used to run a business. Whenever wealth-envy advocates the reduction of wealth what is really being promoted is an increase in government, because once this wealth is taxed away those jobs are also taxed away. That is why the complete repeal of the death tax (the ultimate confiscation of wealth) would create 1.5 million jobs in the private sector. (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Commentary/2009/11/Repealed-Death-Tax-Would-Liven-Industry) Looking at the rich as a piggy bank for the government to use to buy votes from the people who don't pay taxes is a recipe for becoming a declining country. Self-reliance and hard work is the American way. Dependency on the government for your livelihood is an opiate which suppresses everything that makes America great. Class-envy rhetoric is like the drug dealer who gives the drugs away until you are hooked. In this case the dependency is on government. When your dependency is absolute, are you still free? When there is no more wealth to confiscate who will pay?

Beholder: your comment made some sense however you left out some important information. Do the poor higher on people?? No, the rich do. The wealthy people are also business owners. If they are taxed to death then what happens. They either downsize the business meaning lay people off or go out of business altogether. Then there is also the idea that in order to get this country going again we need to spend. Do the poor people spend? No they don't have the money to spend therefore they don't. If you tax the wealthy to death then there is nothing to spend. Half the people of this country do not pay taxes. If we have half that don't pay any taxes then what happens the other half is left with the bag of paying all the taxes. You take into account the middle class that are not taxed as heavily that leaves the so called wealthy. How long do you think the wealthy can sustain a 70% tax or how long do you think they will be willing to work their butts off to pay 3/4 of their income to the government. They will not last long so what does that leave the middle class to pick up the burden. The system is so tilted there should be one tax that everyone pays period. If someone is fortunate enough to be successful in what they do then God bless them. I am not one of them but I do feel this is a free market and if you do not leave capitalism alone to work it will fail and that is what Obama wants this country to fail so he can rule with an iron fist.

Beholder – How is it "fair, reasonable, or logical" for the Government to just walk in an take a person's wealth (that has worked, scrimped, and saved to acquire his entire life) and just give it away to those that refuse to work and save. That's

called "Socialism", or as Obama likes to say, "spreading the wealth". That may sound "logical" to another socialist, but to most Americans, that's just WRONG!

As much as they would like to do so, our government currently doesn't tax by wealth but by income, except for the estate tax which is just a wealth tax on the dead.

Wouldn't a "fair" income tax be the flat tax whereby everyone regardless of income pays the same percentage of their income to Uncle Sam? Why not a sales tax? Why can't this be a nation where there is no "represenation without taxation"? Why can't everyone have skin in the game? Do you think people might pay better attention to the abuses, fraud and waste of and in the government?

What is wealth but an accumulation of assets. A tax on wealth only punishes a person's ability to accumulate assets. Why is it so hard to accept that some are better at earning income and accumulating assets? Is that so bad? I'm glad some people are so gifted. They employ those of us who aren't yet able to do so.

I find it distressing that people in this country believe that those that do what is necessary to be successful then also inherit a responsability, dispreportionate to all other Americans, for the financial provision of the country. I wonder what those people think when they hear the phrase "Taxation without representation". Or, perhaps they believe that a higher tax burden should also result in those persons being provided direct access "and authority" over how, when, and where those funds are expended.

Our Federal Government spending is completely out of control. To my mind, one of the easiest examples to understand is highway funds. Americans in all states are taxed, the monies provided to the federal government, a portion paid to civil servants to process the funds, so that the funds can then be distributed to the states. We have introduced two levels of middlemen that are not necessary at all. have the taxes collected at the State level and spent at the State level. Make the States responsible for maintenance of the Interstate highways and fine then where this is not done. It does not take a rocket scientist, just common sense.

I don't think it will be long before people begin to realize that they can stay home and go broke. Some will even close up shop and try to ride out this storm. Of course this would massively increase unemployment. I can't blame anyone for protecting their own interests. Just maybe we can start another roaring twenties again in response to this Mao-Bama regime. Just like our elders did in response to the Woodrow Wilson regime. How's that hope and change working out for you?

Based on his comments regarding fairness, or the implied lack thereof, of income distribution I'd say "Beholder" from California should strongly consider changing his name to "Beholden" as in "I'm mighty Beholden to the few that carry me and everyone else on their backs up this mountain of debt." No wait, please excuse me, my mistake, you can't really truly be Beholden if you think you're entitled to the free ride in the first place.

This idea that the wealthy should pay so much more than the rest of us is very backwards thinking. People that start their own businesses often work for years with no paycheck at all. They usually have their entire personal wealth on the line for their business. Lets say all these risks and hard work with no pay, pay off. Now the government wants a bigger piece of their pie? These are people who employ others pay taxes in hordes even when it is their fair share. These are usually people that give to charities and start scholarships with amounts of money that would make most of us blush. They provide much desired products to us and the rest of the world. Why does the government hate them so much? Why is the government trying to get the average person to hate them so much? And more importantly how long do you think these high earners are going to stand for it? They have options. They dont have to foot the bill for everyone here in the give us everything for free United States. Maybe we should appreciate the real job creators in this country and stop trying to run them off. I am sure they would be happy to pay their fair share like the rest of us.

Please refrain from playing into the liberal's mantra of "tax the rich". This only creates class envy or class warfare. When gov't decides to pay for their spend-spend-spend programs on the backs of the rich, everyone suffers! Everyone!! You don't see poor people building factories and creating jobs! Back in the '90's the government decided to put a tax on luxury boats/yachts (another way of "taxing the rich" indirectly). Well, what was the result of this? A whole industry of craftsmen shut down in this country! Over 10,000 people lost their jobs along the coasts. The manufacturers of luxury boats/yachts moved off-shore where they could enjoy reduced labor costs and less government interference. This is what happens when gov't gets involved!

When gov't decides to "tax the rich", you'll also see non-profit donations decline, whether it is churches or such organizations as Salvation Army or the Red Cross. Again, everyone suffers, when the real solution is to cut gov't spending. Stop the handouts! Liberals want more people on the dole because those people will continue to vote the liberals in. And, we, taxpayers, continue to see our taxes rise higher and higher!

Well, beholder, you make some interesting, perhaps even cogent arguments. However, when it gets to the point where a person can make more of a return on capital parked in a bank, with no risk, than he can in the free market with an ever-increasing confiscatory government (at all levels, by the way), why would that person continue to endure the risks of investing in a business, especially when said confiscatory governments (they are parasitic by definition, remember), can only respond by taking more and more to continue or provide more and more "services?"

They won't, and that's the point. The nursery rhyme about the goose and the golden egg demonstrates the concept. Semantics and well-articulated points be damned, that is the bottom line. Cook the goose, no more eggs!

One of the sole purposes of government is to protect people from other citizens trying to steal or take property which is not thiers to take. If any one citizen were to take say 70% of another citizens property, they would be taken to court so fast it would make your head spin. So what makes it ok for the government to steal 70% of anyones income on behalf of any citizen(s)? Stealing is stealing and just because the government does it, doesn't make it ok.

I know people have it out for the rich, but those people earned it, they worked hard, went to school and put forth the effort. Maybe there are a few people who got thier gain illegally, and they should be prosecuted, but I think people are entitled to whatever they work for. IF you sit on your but all day and don't go to college then you have no right to take the money of people who did work hard every day and went to school and paid the price ( some of them working full time to put themselves through school). You get what you earn or in this case you don't earn.

IF you want to tax fairly, then get rid of income tax and jsut leavy a tax on goods. That way its not stealing, b/c no one is forcing you to buy things, not to mention everyone poor or illegal, would be taxed in support of their own welfare and it would help put an end to free handouts, or government sanctioned theft.

It’s time that We the People had a say in how our tax dollars are spent. If we, not Congress, were controlling the purse strings, we’d get spending under control real quick.

I vote for a complete overhaul of our tax system, whereby my tax rates are dictated by the services I value and choose to pay for. When I do my taxes each year, I wouldn’t fill out the standard IRS forms identifying income and expenses. I’d pay a small flat tax for essential government services, then pick and choose from a menu of options anything else I want to fund. Wouldn’t that be a wake-up call for Congress?

Beholder in California. Increased wealth for the "rich" does not occur by spontaneous generation. For the wealthy to increase their holdings they must invest and make sound business decisions. Their investments my actually be funding your job (unless of course you are letting Obama pick up your tab). If the rich make a bad decision their wealth is gone. Look at "The Donald" – he has been up and down his whole life. The problem is that if the top ten percent say "screw it, I have enough money to live on" and they stop investing you may be the one that is "screwed."

This class warfare imposed by government influence and on all Americans who live free, is a way for reparations also. Without this bs, nonsensical, idiotic, government, opportunities/careers, would be available and motivation would ensue a good life. Motivation is easily ensued when government stops nursing the public. Cut the taxes and quit the spending!

The government voices over and over again, they do not respect the free no matter what the income. If it wasn't for the wealthy who gave us a job, we wouldn't be living free. Capitalism exemplifies freedom…

if people want to be rich, they have the freedom of choices and reasoning ability to take the proper steps to do it. Absolutely necessary to grow up and break it off from government. Government won't make you rich, or free. If you have a conscience, you won't live happily.

The present administration has known all along that they were destroying the value of the American dollar. Americans MUST stop acccepting the open corruption. Estate tax is pure theft. Every dollar paid to an estate tax is money that has already been taxed at least once. How many times are we going to allow the government to tax the same dollar? The federal government is extorting money out of the Americans citizens to fund their corrupt pet (pork) projects and debts to the unions. Why do you think Obama GAVE the United Auto Workers union 55% ownership in Chrysler? It wasn't his to give. The Cerberus group should have been the recipient of ALL of the assets of Chrysler under federal bankruptcy laws. Chrsler owed Cerberus over $8 billion dollars, in the form of a loan to cover operating expenses in exchange for a certain percentage ownership of Chrysler stock. That's the way business is done, until a corrupt administration comes along and breaks ALL the laws and makes it up as they go along. Obama left Cerberus out on the cold so that he could pay off his union cronies so that the unions would continue to back him with votes and cash. It's blatantly corrupt, unethical and illegal. This president, speaker of the house and Harry Reid should ALL be impeached for corruption in public office. It's already too late to save the value of the U.S. dollar, which was once the world-wide standard. You can't unspend $5 Trillion dolllars. And soon, our credit rating, 'our' meaning the United States, is lowered from AAA status, which is already on the way. Obama won't be able to sell all of those bonds to China and Japan and Saudi Arabia to fund his deficit spending, without paying exorbitant interest rates on the bonds, which will create a vicious circle where the U.S. goes depr and deeper into debt until we can't borrow any more. The money that the Treasury prints will be worthless. The American people MUST get up off of the couch and pay attention to what your government is doing, with the open, direct assistance of the mainstream media. We're being raped by the multi-millionaires, because they know that they already have enough to live well forever, even when the country goes broke. And that's the idea. If the government is broke, the majority of the people will be broke as well, and will be forced to allow tighter and tighter federal government control over all things. That has been the Obama mandate all along, to concentrate ALL power over ALL money and laws into Washington, D.C. The Constitution was written to prevent this exact situation, yet they've stacked the deck so far in their favor and ignored ANY Constitutional limits for so long, that it's almost too late for anything even resembling a free, open, capitalist society in America. Those are all of the things that made America the richest and most powerful country on the planet. Obama's plan, taken directly from Saul Alinsky's book "Rules for Radicals", has been to force America to be a Socialist state, where ALL people must go to government for assistance. After all, he spent 20 years at a church where they openly preached G.D. America from their tax-free pulpit, in violation of federal laws, and where all they teached was "Black Liberation Theology" – open admission from the pastor (Obama's mentor) His Word, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Trinity United Church is the most openly racist Church in America, and that's what shaped OUR president. Then he told enough lies over and over again that 52% of the American people voted for him. Now it's too late, once he's shown his true colors, his own racism, his own Socialist view of America. He's trying to ake everyone dependent on the government so that the government will be all-powerful. This man is evil and he DOES NOT have the best interests of the American people in his heart. How would people have responded to an openly racist, caucasian male that refused to divulge his true background and spent over 1.2 million dollars to seal ALL of his personal records? Obama gets a pass at every turn, for every lie, because anyone who points out the truth is called a "racist", while the worst racist in American history is living in the White House. He's a lying, openly corrupt traitor to the American people and he needs to be impeached and stopped before it's too late.

I vote for a federal sales tax on goods, exempt would be medicines and food. Certain medical equiptment could be tax free or at a lower tax, I agree ten everyone pays their share. I do believe this would work and no one could lie orscheme their way out of it. Imports from foriegn countries could be taxed as they come through customs( ie: purchased from overseas not for resale) Taxation has gotten out of hand and many get large loop holes an have off shore acct's so don't pay tax on Interest. This way would be fair as you will only spend what you hav and just think of the paper it would save on filings.

"How can something like this (pick your tragedy – ignorance, poverty, hunger, crime, homelessness, sickness, no cell phone, ad nauseum) happen in AMERICA? We are the RICHEST country in the world." Therefore, by implication, those of us not in that same boat somehow owe those that are the same standard of living that we have earned. First of all, we ain't rich. The country is in massive debt and will be for generations. Second, every country in the world, including America, has a percentage of people who believe that they are owed a living by others.

Unfortunately, America is not the only country in the world that has politicians who make a nice living reinforcing this idea. How dare anyone living off the labors of someone else (be they welfare recipients or politicians) complain that those who provide for their sustenance aren't paying enough, otherwise known as "their fair share"?

To all those who responded to my comment (there's too many to respond to individually):

I understand that the top 10% undoubtedly worked very hard to accumulate the wealth they now have (excluding those who inherited wealth), but I hope the consensus here is not that they worked proportionately that much harder to obtain it. I'm sure many these super-hard workers spend most of their conscious time working, but so do many Americans. The thing to understand is that the lion's share of wealth in our society doesn't come from hard work alone, but specifically, the application of hard work to business. Everyone who gets rich (excluding the lotto winners, celebrities, and worldwide masters of certain trades) gets rich by owning business. With no other exceptions I can think of, in order to actually have any chance to obtain a significant portion of world wealth, you must be involved in business, in that you either start a prospering business yourself, or you invest in businesses intelligently (which, of course, is another way to own business aside from starting one yourself). So even though Joe the doctor might work harder than Jim the venture capitalist, Joe can hope for a 200k salary while Jim can, potentially, obtain billions.

So keeping that in mind, taxing the rich is less about demonizing the rich or forcing otherwise innocent people to shoulder the burden of the other 90% of the nation who cannot obtain ownership of business, and more about compensating for the wealth inequalities our economic system creates. Our government needs money from the citizenry to fund essential services needed to keep society safe and in order. By proportion of income and especially wealth, the middle class is shouldering most of the burden.

I also understand that we all share this sentiment that we don't want people to take advantage of us (hence all the anger toward those living off welfare, those living without paying taxes and of course illegal immigrants), and we certainly don't want people LIKE us to be similarly taken advantage of (hence the tendency to support the wealthy when our government tries to tax them more), but I hope others can see this from a different perspective; rich people get rich by working hard at specific things (business or investing 99.99% of the time), not because they work a billion times harder than we do. As such they should have to pay more taxes, because they are earning far more than we are for equal amounts of backbreaking work.

Also, I don't think taxing the rich would stifle business growth. It might cause business wealth to be spread more evenly, but a CEO/high profile investor's personal stake in a multi-billion dollar business does not affect the ability of that business to continue to grow and succeed.

So to address the taxing the rich issue, yes I still maintain it's the logical choice.

The country IS in massive debt, but we still ARE still the richest country in the world if you look at distribution of wealth.http://www.wider.unu.edu/events/past-events/2006-…
The US possesses over a quarter of world wealth, despite accounting for somewhere around only 5% of the world's population. However, we don't have the highest standard of living of course, since wealth distribution within the country itself is so uneven (and so the average is lower than it should be). Saying "we don't owe the lower class any of our money" makes this an issue of people taking advantage of us. Really, to put it simply, due to how bad wealth distribution is (and it's getting worse), it's an issue of saving lives. You don't pull someone out of a burning building because you owe them, you do it because their death is the consequence of not doing so. So you could look at cutting social aid programs as pulling a leech off your back, or you could look at it as letting someone burn. The truth is, of course, somewhere in the middle.

There should be an “alternative minimum tax” for everyone, not just “the rich.” I think 10% isn’t an unreasonable vig for everyone, including my kid who earns money working at the mall. It is best they are “in the game” right from the get-go.

Beholder, your words are similar to what the government has been infiltrating into the minds of the vulnerable. It doesn’t seem you understand what freedom is or the personal responsibilities it takes to be. To suggest any strangers to me, the government calls “rich,” to pay for my medical condition is beneath me. My life and medical condition is my business, not government’s. To have GOVERNMENT hold me accountable To HIGHER MEDICAL EXPENSES to pay for those that won’t add it to their own budget is blatantly WRONG! If everybody did their duty to their INDIVIDUAL lives, the costs wouldn’t be so UNREASONABLY HIGH! We’re not rich, we’re not republican, we’re definitely not DEMOCRAT! the party of human weakness!
HERE’S A MOTTO FOR THIS YEARS ELECTION: SHOW YOUR HUMAN WEAKNESS, VOTE DEMOCRAT.

@Billie
I came to my own opinions on my own, without any “government influence.”
I have noticed though that lately there are a lot more people than usual trying to tell others what freedom is and what being an American is all about; I try not to listen to them and I follow my own heart.

The problem with assuming that higher medical costs and the fact that some people have their medical paid for them are both being caused by laziness and irresponsibility is that it just doesn’t match up with the facts. There are plenty of hard working Americans out there who have jobs that simply don’t pay enough or don’t provide enough insurance for them to be able to get by. There are also people who, due to circumstances out of their control, have to get on those programs whether they want to or not (single parents, people with unexpected health disasters, those who lose their jobs etc.)

It would be nice if we lived in a world that was simple enough that those who couldn’t afford to take care of themselves could be blamed for that problem and left to die on the streets, but unfortunately, the world is not that simple.

I’m not suggesting the rich pay proportionately more than the rest of us. I’m asking that the people who have 80% of the wealth should be covering closer to 80% of the taxes, instead of leaving proportionately more of the burden to the middle class.

Yes, its easily done. See the tax returns and other calculations for the two families at http://fairsharetaxes.org. If you consider all our taxes including income, social security, sales, excise, property taxes, you see that the progressive income taxes are overwhelmed by the other taxes, which are regressive and shift the tax burden to the middle class. [The Number 2 point in the main article is inflated and addresses only the federal income tax, which accounts for only 30% of all taxes collected in the country. The remaining taxes push the tax burden onto the middle class.]

[The number 1 point is well taken. We should contain spending. However much of this spending is on two wars started by a conservative president. The only significant potential cut in spending out there is to bring the national per patient Medicare cost down to what they spend at the Mayo Clinic. Conservative Congressman opposed any cuts to Medicare]

The working class family’s tax rate on income from work is seven times greater than the millionaire’s tax rate on investment gains and income. Middle class families often pay over half their entire wealth (>50% of net worth) in taxes each year, while the third-richest man in the world pays less than 0.02% of his net worth, a tax rate 2500 times lower!

This is not only unfair but hurts our economy and the chances of the US remaining a force to build a better world. The much lower tax rates for investment (vs work) and wealth accumulation in the investing class (the top 20% hold 87% of the nation's wealth.) distorts incentives, leads to too much money chasing too few worthy investments, investment bubble … burst … recession .. you lose your job or take a salary cut.

If we want to make taxes proportional to ability to pay and the extent to which a household has profited from the economic infrastructure that our governments (i.e. all taxpayers) provide, we need to tax wealth, as well as income.

If we add very small wealth tax on the wealthiest 20%, we could eliminate our regressive social security, sales and property taxes (also to befair eliminate capital gains and estate taxes), cut income taxes, cut total tax payments by each middle class family by thousands, and eliminate the national deficit. As a demonstration of the power of even a tiny wealth tax on the very richest: A 1% tax on the portion of any family’s net worth over 1 million dollars would cut the projected 2011 federal defect by 30%. The economy would take off and the wealthy would likely make more in their investments than they paid in higher taxes.

Don’t have time to read the Washington Post or New York Times? Then get The Morning Bell, an early morning edition of the day’s most important political news, conservative commentary and original reporting from a team committed to following the truth no matter where it leads.

Email address

Ever feel like the only difference between the New York Times and Washington Post is the name? We do. Try the Morning Bell and get the day’s most important news and commentary from a team committed to the truth in formats that respect your time…and your intelligence.